I’ll be waiting during the next few months for someone running for Texas attorney general to pop off one of those “tough on crime” spots.

Then I will be mortified.

The Texas Tribune has an interesting story about three leading Republicans running for the GOP nomination for state attorney general. The guy who’s in the job now, Greg Abbott, is giving it up to run for Texas governor.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/01/primary-race-attorney-general-slowly-taking-shape/

The three leading Republicans are Barry Smitherman, who is now serving on the Railroad Commission; Dan Branch, a state representative from Dallas and Ken Paxton, another state rep, from nearby McKinney. They all brand themselves as conservatives — although it’s not yet clear whether they’ll brand each other that way.

What happens occasionally in races for this office is that someone misconstrues — either deliberately or by mistake — what this office is all about.

The AG is the state’s top lawyer. The attorney general represents the state in litigation. His or her office argues for the state in court. The AG, in effect, is a civil litigator.

Every now and then, though, you see an attorney general or someone who wants the job stepping way out of bounds.

Exhibit A has to be the late Jim Mattox, a fiery Democrat who was AG in the 1980s. In 1989, Mattox decided to create a ghastly photo opportunity when the body of a University of Texas student was found in a grave in Matamoros, Mexico. In 1989, Mattox trudged through the mud at the death scene, declaring something to the effect that he would bring whoever committed the crime to justice.

It made for great pictures, except that it was irrelevant. The attorney general’s office would have next to zero influence in determining the outcome of that heinous act.

Of course, that was the year before Mattox launched an unsuccessful run for the Democratic nomination for Texas governor, a race won by then-state Treasurer Ann Richards.

Judges do the same thing all the time. They say they’re “tough on crime,” “tough on criminals.” I always thought judges are supposed to be totally without bias for or against either side. They’re supposed to be neutral when they try cases, aren’t they?

Whatever. I still will be waiting for some attorney general candidate along the way in this election cycle to make some kind of grand declaration about what he’ll do to fight crime.

I hope these fellows prove me wrong.